Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

Quote/fundraiser mess at the top

So what are we putting in our monobook.css to block that "Wikipedia itself is an outstanding achievement of humanity." — Anon [Hide this message] mess at the top now? If you click the "Hide this message", all it does it change it to the fundraising bar... -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the sections on WP:VPT has the new code. --NE2 05:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The code is:

#siteNoticeBig { display: none; }

#siteNoticeSmall { display: none; }

Just put that in Special:Mypage/monobook.css. Neil ☎ 10:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't seem to recall IPs having a monobook.css. Why do the sysops do this? First the ugly red thing then this? ♥ Fredil 12:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredil Yupigo (talk • contribs)

Excellent. That did it. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So why does the design keeps changing every two days? is there any ongoing discussion? because the current one doesn't look particulary interesting (stick figures?) wich means it probably won't attract the attention of some potential donors. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign is where the ongoing discussion is at the moment. --ais523 14:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

But seriously Mr ALLSTAR ECHO, is there anything I can put in my monobook to hide the "mess" that is your rather irritating signature?--Doc^g 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur. --Ali'i 15:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there is: a[title="User:Allstarecho"] span, a[title="User talk:Allstarecho"] span { border:none!important; background:transparent!important; color:inherit!important } —Random832 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Or here's a more novel work around.. turn off your computer. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 07:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get off track... did anyone notice that fundraising was just a touch faster last year without the annoying banners? ♥ Fredil 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Basic economics - fundraisers raise more funds when the economy is doing better. The current economic slowdown and risk of financial sector meltdown in the US will clearly mean that people have less money to spend/more reason to hold on to it. Who'd've thought it - economic meltdown when the Republicans are in power - just like every other time! The size of the donations is much more likely to be linked to macroeconomic conditions than it is to the size of the advertising banner soliciting them. Agree, BTW, that Allstarecho's sig needs to be toned down. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We need more admins urgently

Since IP page creation looks like it will be re-enabled (see Link) we are probably going to need a lot more admins doing Special:Newpages. Could I ask everybody to ask at least one editor you think could make a good amin if they would be interested in a RfA? Tim Vickers 16:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked a number of people during the week with only one person accepting. Nothing to do with this though--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this really going to happen? Oh dear. The thing about wikien-l is, they are often somewhat nostalgic for the good old days. I fear they may have failed to take into account just how important it is to get your Great New [ Idea / Theory / Band on Wikipedia ] these days. The best argument against anonymous page creation as far as I can see is CAT:CSD. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This will be fun. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

All I can seen from this is CSD being constantly backlogged. *sigh* oh well. If it can be turned off once it can be turn off again when they see the folly of the "experiment". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Any editor can patrol new pages, if the csd backlog does get out of hand then I think a posting asking more existing admins to help will be effective. We always need more admins, but no more than normal I think. 1 != 2 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "urgently" is over blown. Unless someone is planning to write a press announcement, I suspect that most anons won't even notice the change for weeks or months. In other words, whatever the ultimate effect of such changes, I suspect they will ramp up gradually over a substantial period of time. Dragons flight 18:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragons flight is probably correct. Given that this decision seems to have happened in such a way that even fairly active editors are just now becoming aware of it (I myself just found out in the last couple of hours), I don't suspect that this will result in a big flood the first day it is enabled. I can see this being a real headache in < a couple of months, but I don't see the urgency right this moment.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it, all it takes is one blog post or one newspaper reporter for this story to be on the evening news. I can bet to you one of them is reading this. The Placebo Effect 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We can deal with it - no problem. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The urgency comes from the lag in getting admins through the RfA process matching the probable lag in IP's learning they can now create pages. We can't create new admins overnight, so if we need more admins in 1-2 week's time we have to start working now. If we all invite a few people, this will hopefully make a big dent in the problem. Tim Vickers 18:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD is an exceedingly easy task using tools out there. I don't think we need a single new admin to deal with the new issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Or we just can abandon what is undoubtedly a silly idea of going back to IP newpage creation.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Too late now to abandon this idea; the flood is coming. It is not too late to nominate new admins. I suspect the flood of stupid new articles will not come for a few days or so - my prediction is Wednesday, November 14. Bearian 18:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The sanguine view that we will be able to cope with our present set of admins is one I hope is true. However, although this best-case scenario is certainly possible, if we are wrong and we can't cope then things could get pretty unpleasant and generate a great deal of negative publicity for the project. Consequently, I think it is most sensible to plan for the worst-case scenario. Tim Vickers 18:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and would probably disqualify myself on the basis of having an occasionally hot temper. However, I do note that Wikipedia:Admin coaching exists for individuals who might consider becoming admins a bit of an idea what being an admin is like. Maybe we could try to get some current admins to ask prospective admins whether they would consider becoming such, or alternately, if they think they might not be particularly qualified, maybe offering to coach them until they either qualify or decide that the role isn't for them? John Carter 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) I agree that we need more Administrators, but that problem clearly doesn't stem from a lack of trying. Rather, we might want to look at a re-focusing of the atmosphere of RfA, in an attempt to ensure that the percentage of candidates enlisted here who are likely to pass increases. There seems to be a general trend of nominations here increasing, yet the success rate is decreasing, indicating a rise in the number of, shall we say, mistaken (often self-) nominations. Having said that, I support the re-enabling of IP article creation. This move sends out a clear signal to both our Community and the Wide World that we really do invite everybody to edit here, and that those who don't choose to create an account aren't restricted to the interests and imagination of others. Anthøny 18:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And for a hearty example of the RfA atmospshere, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaraLove; the "bad mother" card was played. No one needs those kinds of low blows in life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more admins... I'm just saying that we have a stupid number of inactive admins sitting around. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind being an admin, but my two previous attempts went heavily against me, along with a block I had several months ago. It's not like I would abuse the tools, but some editors might not trust me. :( Davnel03 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its time for Jimbo to give some users Sysop tools. He's done it in the past [1]. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone would quote that...-- John Reaves 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Got two up already. If you guys want I'll go into my backlog and put out 3-4 more :) Wizardman 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you might as well. Davnel03 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that one of the reasons for disabling immediate, anonymous IP page creation was due to BLP concerns...? Aside from the general 'firehose of crap' problem, are we setting ourselves up for another Seigenthaler controversy? And if not, what measures are in place now that weren't available to us before? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC

Do you have some magic list of trustworthy users interested in doing administrative scut work that also are unwilling or unable to pass RFA? Dragons flight 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)There is a software change coming that will enable patrolled edits for Special:Newpages. Gmaxwell has it set up on his personal wiki (you need to get an account to patrol) if you want to test it before it gets here. To mark a page as patrolled, scroll to the bottom of the article and click the little [Mark this article as patrolled] link. Pages in the list highlighted in yellow need to be patrolled. Here, this would be used for marking good newpages or pages already tagged for deletion. I'm not sure when this is coming (soon), you'd have to go on IRC #wikimedia-tech and bug Brion. Mr.Z-man 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If we need more administrators urgently, then we probably should stop turning down fully qualified candidates on specious grounds such as those discussed in this thread. Newyorkbrad 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC

I agree, We don't need more administrators, we just need more good and active administrators. We don't need people who will sit back and do nothing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If anybody can think of a simple way of improving the quality and activity of the admins we have at the moment, then they should go ahead and do it. However, the only thing guaranteed to increase the number of active admins is to increase the total number of admins. Encouraging other editors to apply is pretty simple, its no big deal! Tim Vickers 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I could send every administrator a message to start being more active on admin backlogs...Or else! Opinions? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to advise you to do that ;) Tim Vickers

Maybe you could ask a bot to go round and send a message to every single admin telling them to get more active? Just an idea. Davnel03 21:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was a fully serious proposal. Alerting admins on this noticeboard is satisfactory. Afterall, they're volunteers in the first place just like everyone else, they can't be forced to be more active. Leebo ^T/C 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that such a move would be met with hostility. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IM(extremely uninformed)O article creation numbers will continue to go up even if we don't have this experiment - we'd just be delaying the inevitable. Resurgent insurgent 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's always possible that this will simply result in a slowdown of the pace at which the registered user pool is growing, since one of the key attractions of registering will be removed. Leebo ^T/C 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, that would also probably serve to decrease the number of new potential admins, possibly make the situation that much worse. John Carter 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would hold true if the typical new page creator became a legitimate candidate for adminship, which is not the case. Users who are inclined to take the steps toward adminship would likely create an account for one of the many other purposes. Users who would avoid creating an account just to get their quick article up probably wouldn't become admin material. Leebo ^T/C 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts that we could get a lot more admins who mainly desire to use the tools in NP Patrol (mainly thanks to the RFA process from what I have seen in the past). And there is a snowball's chance in heck of starting to give people just the deletion part. FunPika 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to increase the sysopping rate, as has been pointed out above - we need more admins doing new-page patrol. Therein lies the problem; I have encountered few or no tasks on Wikipedia more unrewarding and downright unpleasant than new-page patrol. It's no big deal to deal with clear bad-faith spammers, or to educate newcomers on the notability criteria, though it is a bit time-consuming. The problem with new-page patrol is that you get pushback from established users as well. For me the turning point (i.e. when I stopped bothering with new page patrol) was when an admin and sitting Arbitrator aggressively questioned my competence because I speedied a clearly A7 article. Who wants to volunteer their time for that sort of thing? We need to make new-page patrol a little more appealing, and support the folks who do it - otherwise, no matter how many new admins we create, they'll burn out as well under the inevitable barrage of second-guessing. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of a bigger picture of failure and systemic bias: see my mail Pakistani politicians and systemic bias to wikien. A7 gives the wrong result? It's the admin's responsibility. Charles Matthews 07:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not just New page patrol, I do tons of new page patrol daily. I tag articles for CSD and wait for an admin to come along and delete them. When tagged they go into a category (CAT:SPEEDY) where administrators review them and delete them. What would be needed is new administrators both patrolling the new page log AND working on the build up of the CSD backlog. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What about actually going and do some work? I usually sneak in some deletions from C:CSD, and many, many more with image categories. When November 9th rolls, around I'll try; however, I've been informed recently about an approaching backlog in an image category, and I'll probably be forced to divert my attention there. So my advice is basically, you shouldn't moan about having to do 20 speedy deletions; I've been keeping the image categories relatively neat without many complaints in relation to the amount of deletions, and I do way more work. Oh, and I did I mention that I have some time left to get an article fixed (I've requested some help, but I do work on it as well) for a FAC? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And the admins shouldn't moan when they are never thanked for their work but instead yelled at by established users when they think the admin messed up (and sometimes did not)? FunPika 22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should be clearer. I'm not soliciting pity. I'm saying that the atmosphere surrounding new page patrol results in burnout and deters recruitment of new admins, so if we're concerned about the number of new page patrollers then we might want to address that. I do plenty of admin work, particularly given that I'm a relatively new admin, but that's not the point. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing newpage patrol is quite easy if you have the proper tools to do it with. Check out User:Wikidudeman/Hodgepodge and User:Martinp23/NPWatcher. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe if these tools were made available to everyone then more people would do it. I've never understood the practice of requiring "checkpages" - if people are misusing these programs they can be blocked. People aren't required to get prior approval before using TW. It's just gratuitous bureaucracy to require it just because the program is written in VB or C# rather than javascript. —Random832 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm staying up 24 hours straight just to delete ;). Maybe I could break the deleting record for a day in the process :). Unless there is a big sign that says ANONS CAN EDIT, or excessive news exposure which both doesn't seem to be the case, most of the anons won't even notice until weeks after it been implanted. This is a Secret ^account 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

But who says they notice now? I would have thought that the first time an anon realises they have to register to create pages is when they try to create one, and get the big block of explanatory text. If that's true, then as soon as anonymous creation is reenabled the floodgates are open. Confusing Manifestation 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

skimming the page where this is being discussed, this is being enabled because a developer thinks it would be a neat experiment - that's it. Surely something like this should be discussed by the community? this is the tail wagging the dog! madness! --Fredrick day 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can only predict a negative outcome of this, but I guess we'll have to wait a little longer and see... нмŵוτнτ 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So far I've persuaded four people to put themselves forward for RfAs, hopefully if we all have a look through the people we interact with we can find a few more trustworthy editors. Tim Vickers 20:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

At least, for now, this doesn't look so bad. Let's keep it up. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Email block

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a very serious concern regarding email block. Allow me to explain.

Administrators, as you all know, have the ability to block users. Always have, always will. And they are expected to use this feature responsibly. Recently, there was something introduced several months ago called "Block Email user," which, as the name suggests, is a technical block preventing users from emailing other users. It was introduced to prevent users from sending trolling comments via email.

However, my concern is that certain administrators are using email-user block far too loosely. By that I mean, they are using it to block the emails of certain users, protecting their talk pages, and basically shutting down communication fully to any user who they do this to. While there is certainly some good reasoning behind it, it is a technical feature that shouldn't just be used anytime there is a block initiated. What if the user has reasoning for what they did or need to say something important or something?

I was wondering if we, as a community, could discuss this? Pink Floyd 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are raising this out of general concern or with reference to a specific blocked account, but the general point being made here is well-taken. The recently implemented "block this user from sending e-mail" feature was intended for cases in which a user has misused the e-mail capability in the past or there is reason to be seriously concerned he or she might do so in the future. An administrator should have a specific reason in mind when selecting this setting, and it should certainly not be a box that is routinely checked on most blocks. Newyorkbrad 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, it's a general concern. I'd provide citations but I can't think of any specific ones at the moment. Pink Floyd 00:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems permitted per Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Abuse of the unblocking process. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but certain admins do it even without unblock abuse. Pink Floyd 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, the "block e-mail" function should rarely be used in the first block (except in case of, say, sockpuppets known to abuse it). I should almost always be a secondary thing. -- John Reaves 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy regarding it, but just out of common sense, I would only use it in the most egregious cases of harassment. east.718 at 02:26, 11/6/2007

Exactly. See, I think we should use it for trolls abusing unblock, socks of blocked/banned users who've abused it before, or just trolling via email. Pink Floyd 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, if an admin routinely disables email as a default when blocking, when no abuse of the email function has occurred, and continues to do so after multiple requests for it to stop, what is the next step? This is a very specific case related to one admin's apparent refusal to acknowledge that blocking email as a default is against policy and shouldn't be done. - auburnpilot talk 01:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC? Pink Floyd 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is it? It may make more sense to bring up the issue here. -- John Reaves 04:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs). I've pointed this out to him twice, (05:27, 9 September 2007 | 02:46, 31 October 2007) and twice he has only stopped briefly before resuming the next day/a few days later. - auburnpilot talk 15:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea of using email-block by default is a very bad idea - it should be reserved for trolls. Any administrator who doesn't want to get annoying emails from trolls can merely disable email being sent to them through their preferences, which any user can do. I'm concerned with the idea that CSCWEM uses this feature regularly, but looking at the top of his log, I see only two instances of this title, both with the word "troll" in the summary. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

CSCWEM seems to have a different opinion of a troll than Wikipedia, as the two accounts listed at the top of the logs are in fact nothing more than vandal accounts. If you look, the one account only made one edit before being block as a "troll" with email disabled, and that one edit was a full hour before the block. CSCWEM has made over 30,000 blocks, so you have to go beyond the first 50. - auburnpilot talk 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As examples, the follow accounts were blocked over the last two weeks with email disabled, and no evidence of abuse: Daedalus1337, Krakn, Anglus8823, Dbeaglefan, Brendan.sucks, Jiggapedia, Mister Boofoo, Tumbling Falls, Ms. Stinkipuzzi, Elly.mae21, Marvin the Man-Kissing Mangler, Mc752, Thattook, Tigerclan21, Zackisfag, Elnod, Bradley.knight, Hawkesie, Whyhaveaname, Yiggypoo, Soccer2037, Mobius323, and Aflemingo92. Also note that not a single one of these accounts received a block notice, and some were blocked without warning. - auburnpilot talk 18:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add some comments here. I'm a little limited in what I can say because I don't want to WP:BEANS anything. I have discussed this matter a bit with Can't Sleep and I want everyone to be clear here that he's been acting in good faith and was quite open to any suggestions I had to offer. I'm not trying to speak for him, if I am mistaken in what I'm saying here, I'm sure he will correct me. For obvious trolls (and come on, at least most of those were trolls... Brendan.sucks, Jiggapedia, Stinkipuzzi?) and particularly for returning trolls, it's sometimes a good idea to block with email disabled. You should see some of the death threats and general harassment some admins get. It's also worth noting that these blocked accounts do still have the unblock-en-l mailing list open to them, though I must admit I don't recall if this is specifically mentioned on the block page (and am too lazy to check this out right now). Anyway, Can't Sleep is going to generally refrain from blocking with email disabled. In some cases, this will clearly be necessary to disable email and it may be the case that in the future that Wikipedia will generally block obvious troll accounts with email disabled. But for now, most blocks will not have email disabled. Can't Sleep also already makes his email address widely available on his user page. I believe that Wikipedia does not have a general policy that requires that admins do even this much though it is often raised during RfA nominations if potential admins are not reachable via email. Anyway, the point here is that Can't Sleep is reachable via email. As mentioned, I'd like to avoid going into much more detail here to avoid WP:BEANS. I am happy to discuss the matter in more detail via email with any interested admin. I've always found Can't Sleep is easy to reach that way as well. And I am happy to answer general questions right here or via email with non-admins if I can avoid WP:BEANSing things. --Yamla 22:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If an administrator receives harrasing ammounts or simply threatening messages from people he/she has blocked on Wikipedia, then by all means he/she can enable the email block feature. This is basically why the feature was enabled. I was receiving several hundred messages from a single individual, and in that weekend the feature was installed in the MediaWiki software. If CSCWEM feels the need to, he too can activate the feature, particularly if the individuals have been harassing him prior to the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statements regarding those who have sent harassing email, but in this case, CSCWEM has his email disabled, so this isn't preventing him from receiving email. He wasn't just disabling it for those who abused the featured, he was doing it as a default option regardless of the account. In the two weeks before I asked him to stop, he blocked 158 registered users; every one of them had their email function disabled. After I pointed out this was against policy, he blocked another 90 users. For what it's worth, I'm not asking for any penalty or action taken against CSCWEM. I'm also not stating these accounts shouldn't have been blocked. I simply want it to be clear that email should not be disabled as a default. - auburnpilot talk 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

His e-mail is disabled now, yes, which mine had been, too, when I was getting the harassing messages. I had, for some time as well, blocked e-mail for users who I had a feeling would abuse it or would simply not use it, and I agreed to stop. Has CSCWEM even felt like replying here and answering (and this looks interesting)?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Ryulong, I smell a sockpuppetry accusation.

What are you trying to prove? I've been an IP editor for many, many months. You, sirs, are always interested in saying that users are socks, just because their mainspace edits are outweighed by their edits to places most don't go to until they're a month into their tenure. In fact, it's sickening to see people blocked as sockpuppets all the time. The goal of the project is to build the encyclopedia, not damage it by blocking constructive editors. And of course, you'll ignore what I'm saying and block this account anyways as a likely sock of User:Connell66, or scan a checkuser on me.

This is ultimately disgraceful. GO AWAY!!! Pink Floyd 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Images from bollywoodblog

There is something wrong about all these images. The license summary claims that OTRS has received permission from the blog owners releasing these pics on CC-3. But the blog itself tells a different story. This image for example, is taken from here. Now, if we scroll all the way to the bottom of that page, the blog tells us -

which forbids commercial use. Also note that many of the pics are cropped derivatives of the original. Can somebody here explain whats going on? Or should all these pics be deleted? Sarvagnya 09:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And oh, btw.. some of them have watermarks on them. Atleast those can be speedied I guess. Sarvagnya 09:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this issue was brought up before. I thought the user was Hindu Boar but I can't find that name. I will continue searching as I swear this was resolved. spryde | talk 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

and I was right... spryde | talk 12:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• If some have watermarks then they should be deleted. In my view, if any are provably not the copyright of the blog (i.e. simple crops of a non-PD image) then all should be removed as not having a trustworthy free license. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been questioned many times -yes I can confirm that I contacted the director of caledonian publishing and received permission . He actually said "They would be delighted to help wikipedia" and if you check the system verification you'll see we are permitted to use these images under 3.0. PLease confirm with User:Videmus Omnia or User:Riana who overlooked it. And yes we are trying to avoid watermarked images where possible. Under this license we are indeed permitted to crop images and use commercially. Why am I not surprised Sarvagnya is the editor concerned here? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes it was Spyde who saw this last time. This is turning into a joke . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion Guy but if you spoke to the director of Caledonian publishing who owns that site you would think differently. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• You might care to read it a b it more carefully. What I said was, watermarked images should go (existing policy), and if we find any that are provably not the copyright of the blog then we'd have to delete them all because the claim of copyright ownership would lose credibility. Nobody's disputing that the blog owners have sent the release, the question is whether the rights are, in every case, theirs to release, and if not, what to do about it. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check the OTRS system here which will indeed confirm this 3.0 agreement is legal ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Actually on the Bollywood site there is clear confirmation that wikipedia is permitted to use the images under a 3.0 license and in doing so realises it is allowing them to be used commercially on other sites or whatever for all. Admin made certain this was correct before finalising it. Now would you like the email address of the director to confirm this yourself? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like seeing this brought up repeatedly, it implies I don't know what I'm doing ;) The permissions checks out completely - I did a lot of back-and-forthing to get it all right, mainly because it just seemed frankly a little unbelievable at first that they would be so generous. But we got the all clear. WRT the site notice - I also e-mailed them about this, explaining that they couldn't license one way for us and one way for everyone else, it had to be all or nothing. They offered to take off the site notice about the nc licensing, which sounded agreeable to me and I OK-ed it. The fact that they have not done so is not my/our responsibility. They understand that a cc-by-3.0 license means that their images may appear throughout the internet (and further afield) due to mirroring. They understand that it means derivatives can be made (including the removal of watermarks). They understand it means that the images may be used in a commercial manner. I have gone through all this with them. I don't know what else to do short of actually reproducing their e-mail here, which I'd rather not do, and I'd also rather not see this pop up every few weeks. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And regarding JzG's question (which is perfectly legitimate and I had the same issue at the beginning) - please, please use some judgement when uploading from the blog - obviously professional images are probably not created by them... ~ Riana ⁂ 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not biting n00bs to become actual necessity

m:Edit Wikipedia Week is happening.

A perennial press story is "I was bitten as a n00b on Wikipedia" - every random interaction with a random en:wp editor is taken as representative and officially sanctioned.

So we need people to be on extra special good behaviour.

(For those about to point out to Mr Pot that he is of similar blackness to Messrs Kettle, Jimbo emailed me directly asking me to please be much nicer on wikien-l in particular. And I can't say it wasn't deserved. *cough*)

Main sticking point I can see is notoriously prickly individuals who are also notoriously good encyclopedia writers. I won't go so far as to name any of those who spring to my mind, but I'm sure you have your own list. If they can be convinced this is a good idea then they should provide a suitably shocking example of niceness.

Also, have to hit the village pump, the admin boards etc. Those who do lots of janitorial work cleaning out the sewers of en:wp (vandal-chasing, newpages patrolling, RC patrolling, etc) and basically see the bad side of people all the time need to be brought on board as well. This is somewhere n00bs can really be bitten.

Ideas please? Not doing this is not likely to be an option. n00bs will be actively recruited, and it's absolutely vital everyone understands why it's bad to react in the obvious way to the blithering depths of human stupidity. - David Gerard 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Or we could write bots to do the biting for us! Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin (and determined to stay that way) I'd like to support what David Gerard has written. We see a lot of newbies on the refdesks (it's an encyclopaedia - people come here to find stuff out!)- but not enough admins popping by and leaving welcome messages for them. We also see too much biting, and the occasional "mind how you go" from admins to some of the more prickly members (and I know I can be prickly at times - but I do try only to bite experienced editors!) might be helpful. The refdesks, help pages, village pumps are all places where new editors are likely to end up. They are also great places to rediscover what it is that brought you to Wikipaedia in the first place. DuncanHill 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that any new user or anon should be "welcomed" with one of the many standard messages. Even if they didn't do anything wrong, surprising an unsuspecting user with a nice welcome sign always brightens their day, and are more forthcoming for discussions and it helps them learn quickly what Wikipedia is and what it's not. We shouldn't wait for them to make a mistake to start discussion and interaction. The only exception are banned users or sockpuppets posing as noobs, or new users with a specific agenda in mind without any regard for the community. Those may require special care (;-). - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I often welcome people I come across while vandal fighting, but perhaps people should also consider starting vandalism warnings at the first level, which includes a welcome and a very heavy dose of AGF. Same with article creation messages. Natalie 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps people should consider starting with a personalized warning -- it gives the impression that there's a human talking to them. The templated warnings are so vague that it feels like there's a machine talking. Most people don't see anything wrong with ignoring messages from a machine. --Carnildo 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been welcoming every anon on 2007 Writers Guild of America strike in the off chance they could be someone who knows how to write and might have some time on their hands in the coming months.... -- Kendrick7^talk 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You might all want to install WP:FRIENDLY, which automates the adding of welcome templates, as well as adding standard "newbie mistake" templates ({{wikify}}, {{unreferenced}} etc). Whichever bright spark thought of having "Edit Wikipedia Week" at the same time as anon page creation's enabled deserves a WP:TROUT for it, too. There is a reason admins are too busy to spend much time welcoming! — iridescent 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Can't get it to work though. It's not an admin-only thing is it? But whatevs, I can cut a paste like a champ. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not an admin-only thing, but I think it might be a Firefox only thing as it runs on the Twinkle code. — iridescent 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It started with this and ended up being this. That's my story for the week. Yes, it was fine! El_C 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. I am pretty nasty to anons quite often, but if we can bend over backwards, maybe some of them will stay and become productive. I know when I was starting it was quite intimidating and I had no idea what I was doing. I was terrified of screwing up and it seemed impossible to find instructions or navigate through these pages at first. What an intimidating mess ! --Filll 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorftrottel (talk · contribs)

I'm sure that everyone is aware that Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours a couple of days ago for incivility. This was increased soon after due to block evasion using an IP to post at the block review on AN/I. At the point that Dorftrottel was incivil, he was drunk. I suspect that Dorftrottel is now sober and probably is upset at his actions. Scars can be left from drunk actions, in this case he has that in his block log. I believe that the block is no longer protective and merely serves as a punitive measure due to Dorftrottel no longer being under the influence, and given that the original block would now have expired, I would like to suggest that he is unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support, with the understanding that Dorf will hit the sack instead of committing an EUI the next time he's got a surplus of sheets to the wind. Dppowell 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, a funny occurence. Support the unblock--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I support the unblocking. Everyone deserves a second chance. Qst 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Support unblock. Not the first editor to have been busted for EUI - Alison ^❤ 19:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him. If I've overstepped, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) Dppowell 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was the right move, I was hoping to wait for comments from Picaroon and kwsn as they were responsible for the blocks, but I guess it doesn't really matter and we can re-evaluate if they are against the unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on IRC, no problems on my end. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC? I-R-C!(?) Did we not ban the word? The insolence of that medium. Anyway, hopefully this will inspire more assumptions of good faith on his part. He was excessively playing the persecution complex card —which upsets me because that's my bit. El_C 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all. You've been very patient with me. A fair warning though: Please stay away from Chilean red wine! Beer or moonshine never had that effect. Beer only gives me the typical 5-beer-homosexuality where I begin seeking more physical contact to other guys, while booze makes me hug the toilet. Maybe we should include some disclaimer on Chilean wine? And the hangover it gave me, you wouldn't believe. Even my usually helpful cocktail of Aspirin and strong coffee had no effect. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is that you could still type straight and make sense. Different people are affected in different ways. I've seen drunk people unable to complete sentences or click the right buttons, and even leave themselves logged in to public computers... Carcharoth 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, typing half-way straight and making some sense don't take too much effort for me. Not being anti-social does, so it's the first thing to go down the drain. — Dorftrottel⁠ 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I can always think, talk and type coherently when drunk - it tends to be walking in a co-ordinated manner that takes an effort. :-) Walton^One 11:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But I've never had a hangover. (Hint: drink gin and tonic. Good stuff.) Walton^One 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Donation Banner

Does it say "0 have donated" for anyone else or is it just me? The Placebo Effect 19:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I get 15,643 - have you purged your cache? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just you (or rather, potentially everyone except me and Ryan). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I, too, get 0. JFTR. Arkon 19:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I get 15,691 at the moment--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Zero here, too. No cache purge. Dppowell 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto zero and ditto purge not helping. If we can't fix this soon, someone should redesign the banner.--Pharos 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

http://donate.wikimedia.org/, the donation tracking server, is offline. I have no idea why or how long it will take to fix. Dragons flight 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I get "Over 15,000" now. Did someone change it? The Placebo Effect 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is getting that static message now. Dragons flight 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have conflicting numbers. When the entire message appears, it reads 15,706. But when I hide it, it says 15,691. Does anyone else have these inconsistencies? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, is it just me, or was there briefly one that said, "Give us your F***ING MONEY"? Seriously. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an old one, actually. GlassCobra 06:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This?: Image:Giveit.jpg. --Dynaflow babble 06:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the one. Glad I didn't imagine it! I didn't know it was kosher to put "Fuck" on every page of WP. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What page were you viewing that it appeared on? User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw, and User talk:Dynaflow appear to have the image absolutely positioned there as a joke. krimpet⟲ 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so far as I can tell, this message was never displayed globally on Wikipedia -- nothing was added to any of our local system messages, nothing to the global messages on meta, and I don't see any tomfoolery with any userscripts you're using. If this really was in the global messages, I would very much so like to find out who did it, but at present, I'm inclined to think this was just a misunderstanding of a joke. Or maybe Brion was having a bad day and decided to sneak her in there :) AmiDaniel (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see it now, 2 seconds every hour of "Brion time".  ;-) Dragons flight 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That "Give us your fucking money." banner was my little joke. I don't think it's being used anywhere other than a few people's talk pages. Neil ☎ 09:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I love your alternative banner, actually. Since my walk to work every morning takes me straight through the heart of San Francisco's lovely Tenderloin District, that is the kind of language I've come to expect to hear when being solicited for "donations." --Dynaflow babble 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I came here to ask about it. It's somewhat amusing, but not something that should be used other than on a few 'inside humor' page, indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming 3000+ people didn't change their minds in the last few hours, something's wrong again. Pinball22 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I saw the "Give It" banner on... my watchlist, IIRC. Only that one time, though. I thought it was pretty funny. But I would have to concur it's not really appropriate for wiki-wide regular rotation. (The tally I'm seeing right now is 18,668) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User 70.106.191.94 > Racial Slur

Resolved

70.106.191.94 (talk · contribs) makes a racial slur here. ~ WikiDon 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a typical piece (although of extremely poor taste) of vandalism, I've given the user an only warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We see this sort of thing every day, it's just people who are bored, I wouldn't worry about it. Qst 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We-e-e-e-ell, I worry about it in a society point of view manner (although the spelling is the self referential model rather than the white supremacist term) but as far as WP... slap a warning on the talkpage and take it to AIV if it happens again. LessHeard vanU 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support instant blocking for any edits which use racial, sexual or any other slurs. Such vandalism doesn't deserver a second chance. (not advocating indefinite blocks, though, just warning blocks to make a point) Corvus cornix 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings

Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now pitching into Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an incredibly complex debate, which is also a minefield (I have seen the OTRS tickets and discussed this one at length with Jimbo and Fred Bauder). This had gone quiet for a while, but Privatemusings seems to have reignited it (or at least played a part in that). Giovanni di Stefano is the lawyer of an individual whose article Privatemusings' main account edited. At what point does a "legitimate alternate account" become a controversy-evading "bad hand" sockpuppet, I wonder? It seems to me that WP:SOCK is being systematically gamed by a small number of people in order to create drama and ignite controversy. I remind people that the main account here is not a very long-standing contributor, is not traceable to real-world identity, so seems to me to have no credible reason to be using an alternate account to cause friction on one of our most problematic WP:BLP articles. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, he's editing Talk:Giovanni di Stefano, not Giovanni di Stefano, and is editing on the talk page in a civil and collaborative manner, working with users including Fred Bauder. Describing it as "pitching in" is a little unfair - and I don't see any friction being caused. Is this "main account" actually still editing? I note PM says it is not (which would suggest it is no longer a "main" account). If not, WP:SOCK doesn't apply. Has PM's other account ever edited Giovanni di Stefano (not another aticle tangentially connected)? As an aside, why did you delete Privatemusing's enjoinder to try and resolve things between the two of you? ([2]) Neil ☎ 09:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have no interest in resolving things "between the two of us", that is a complete red herring. However, this is probably better at WT:SOCK. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC):::

Guy, would you be willing to email me the name of PM's main account and the articles that you mention here? Or I will try and be on IRC from work but I'm rather busy. Thatcher131 12:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The sock puppetry rules no longer apply, unless you are implying that the original account has NOT stopped editing as claimed. I don't think you are the best person to deal with this, because he has made a good faith attempt to patch things up and you ignored that. Viridae^Talk 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So you say. But that is falling for the abusers' frequent trick of claiming that anybody who comes along and shows an interest is "involved" and therefore can't offer an opinion. Actually the overlap between PM's editing and mine is extremely limited, plus (and this is the important bit) such interaction as we have had is the result of attempts to address his problematic behaviour. To say that further discussion of his problematic behaviour is now embargoed because I have started to look at his problematic behaviour is a line of reasoning that will soon leave us unable to deal with any problem at all. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note that his last contribution to the talk page was more than 48 hours before Guy popped up to mention it. At least this time Guy isn't visibly a party to the specific dispute, which is about all that can be said in favor of this report. Time to bury the hatchet Guy. GRBerry 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, the claims that 'Privatemusings is using multiple accounts to edit the same topic' are based on a single brief comment about the subject of 'BADSITES' (prior to creation of the Privatemusings account) and perhaps a handful of other edits on pages within the vast spectrum of the whole controversy. Unless there is some other account that I do not know about or I am overlooking some connection, there has been no 'vote stacking', nothing which can reasonably be described as 'use of multiple accounts to give the appearance of more widespread support than a view has', et cetera. In short, nothing remotely actionable or notably wrong. That would make some of the statements which have been given about this 'abuse' grossly misleading at best... so maybe there IS some other account which has been involved. I dunno.

As to, "I have no interest in resolving things". Therein lies the problem Guy. You made no effort to resolve it before going directly to an indefinite block. You didn't change your position even after he agreed not to do the thing you ostensibly blocked him for. You "have no interest in resolving things". You aren't even trying to settle the matter peaceably. You just want to get rid of the guy you don't like. And that, rightly, has no part in our dispute resolution procedures. --CBD 15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Addenda: Privatemusings' other account has edited the page of one of Giovanni di Stefano's clients (unrelated to the 'BADSITES' issue). However, that's a bit like saying that editing O. J. Simpson and Johnny Cochran with different accounts is 'abusive sockpuppetry'. I see no problem with either account's edits to either page in this case... nor any disruption or problem if they had all been made by one account or each edit individually made under a different name. --CBD 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD, the way we "resolve" abusive sockpuppetry is with the banhammer, especially when concerns had previously been expressed and discussed about the account straying towards the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Before doing anything I discussed the matter with a very small number of people I trust - necessarily small because to do so meant revealing the main account, which is not my normal practice at all. All of them expressed the opinion that this was unacceptable use of an alternate account. That group did include an active member of the Arbitration Committee. The fact that Wikipedia Review are now claiming to have played some part in this rather reinforces my impression that this is someone who is here for the drama, not the encyclopaedia. I am disappointed (actually disgusted, but there you go) that people are representing this as some kind of personal vendetta on my part, or a personal problem between me and this editor. Do you folks really think I have nothing better to do? Shame on you. This is someone who freely admitted that they had registered an alternate account to engage in a controversial debate (just about acceptable) but then stepped outside those bounds to engage in controversial actions in respect of content; I know their previous accounts, this is absolutely not a long-standing respected editor with a history of brilliant contributions who wants to keep that unsullied. All the accounts have a chequered history, all have edited controversial articles, all have edited controversially to some extent. To read the comments here you'd hardly credit that blocking this account was supported at the time and since by a goodly number of respected admins, or that Matthew Brown, FloNight, Thatcher and Lar to name but four have all opined that this behaviour was unacceptable. You'd think this was an editor with years of spotless history to protect, or a tangible link to real-world identity. Not so. The editor had no good reason to register an alternate account in the first place, and their behaviour since has strayed outside of the bounds he apparently set himself, and the bounds of what I consider acceptable from any alternate account. In case people hadn't realised, there is a concerted campaign under way to divide, manipulate and hopefully destroy the Wikipedia administrator community, in order to facilitate abuse by a group of banned editors. Looks like they are doing very well indeed. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, having been told the two prior accounts he used, I really think we are paying this person far too much attention. I never knew the first account, but I thought the second account was a bit of a pest, so this isn't really a case of a good editor hiding his disruptive edits. It's a case of a low-level pest being a low-level pest on two accounts. His interests certainly coincide with those of a number of Wikipedia Review editors who would not be welcome here, and he has a tendency to want to prolong discussion of internal dramas with the argument, "if we don't discuss it, unnamed others will think we are covering it up." And the resolution (or lack thereof) is now compounded because we are kindly not discussing the prior account, which makes it easier for people who argue "don't ban without an ironclad case" to sway the discussion. And, to be honest, if we are going to start banning low-level pests, he would not be at the top of my list. I will be content as long as Privatemusings keeps his promise to abandon his old accounts and stick to Privatemusings--i.e., a voluntary restriction to one account rather than a restriction enforced by a block (at least until he does something overtly bannable). Thatcher131 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, exactly that. One account: fine, behaviour not bannable (and remember I said I'd quietly undo autoblocks). Two accounts? Thank you, but no. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You actually indicated first that I should email you if I wanted the autoblocks undone, then you indicated that your enabling of the autoblocks had been a mistake on your part - just to clarify. Privatemusings 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you first indefinitely blocked in the context of the WP:BADSITES controversy, a controversy in which you are very clearly an involved party. Less than 48 hours after the ArbComm explicitly ruled that that was rejected and not policy, there you were with a very long screed asking them to overturn themselves and say that it was already policy. That is the context in which you are clearly in a dispute with this user. All of your references to Wikipedia Review make it clear to me that you are continuing to act as a party in that dispute, not as an uninvoled admin. Bringing up this particular claim more than 48 hours after the last related edit, refusing to attempt dispute resolution, and spinning the facts to make the situation look far worse than it really is is exactly the behaviour that we expect to see from users whose conduct is problematic in a dispute. It is very clear to me that Guy needs to bury the hatchet and step away. He doesn't even recognize that he is in a dispute and is himself part of the problem. Let Thatcher, or someone else who isn't a party to the WP:BADSITES controversy, deal with this. GRBerry 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I blocked him because having told me who he is and why he set the account up (to contribute to meta debate) he then stared making controversial content edits. Everybody who knows the other account, including three arbitrators and a couple of admins, has agreed this was an inappropriate use of an alternate account. I did not block the main account and offered to undo any autoblocks quietly to preserve the anonymity. The BADSITES debate and arbitration case is, after all, over. But do feel free to carry on pretending that I'm the problem if it helps you to relax. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't indicate to you that PM was intended to comment about 'meta debate' (a horribly vague notion) - I said "I decided when getting more involved in the external link issues ('badsites' etc.) to create a sock, Privatemusings, for the reasons stated on the PM user page". Please don't ascribe your misunderstandings to me, it's annoying. Privatemusings 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well that is sorted. He has restricted himself to one account now - no more problems. Viridae^Talk 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The sock issue is one problem. Another problem, with this and some other accouts, comes when folks participate in Wikipedia only to engage in disputes. This isn't a debating society. When an editor doesn't make any productive edits and instead only participates in arguments it calls into question whether that account is really contributing. However that matter may need to be resolved another time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So Guy has a problem with PM editing an article which has connections with another article that has allegedly been edited by another account which is/was also PM, but is then advised that PM has been contributing to the talkpage of the article - which isn't editing the mainspace - so Will Beback now has a problem that PM doesn't edit articles, but only contributes in the discussions side of stuff (which isn't editing, which is what people are supposed to do - when not complaining about PrivateMusings...)? Have I got that straight? LessHeard vanU 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, not exactly - I had a problem with the fact that PM was using one account to engage in controversy and another for "clean" edits, except the other account also engaged in controversy and didn't have that many edits anyway, plus he'd already switched accounts once before, and that account didn't have many edits but also had a share of controversy. So I ran it past some people I trust, including members of the arbitration committee, and everyone I've spoken to who knows the identities of the accounts agrees that this was inappropriate use of multiple account, and that there was no credible reason for this particular editor to need an alternate account anyway, and the account was starting along what looked like a familiar path of controversial editing, so I stopped that account, advised him I'd quietly undo any autoblocks, so he could get quietly on with his Wikilife. But of course this person isn't here to get quietly on with his Wikilife. He's here for the drama. And he's probably by now getting advice from others on how best to get it. And the best way seems to be to imply that because PM was opposed to BADSITES, therefore all those who consider his behaviour problematic are in favour of BADSIIES, and BADSITES is bad, therefore those who consider PM's behaviour problematic are bad. Or something. I really don't understand the fuss, myself, because generally we block without hesitation when people register alternate accounts just for trolling. Thanks for taking an interest, though. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a little confused here now, because you seem to be saying that at first there seemed to be a case of good hand, bad hand which appears to be a conflation of what WP:SOCK allows - the use of an alternative in areas which the original username does not want to have their prior existence/history involved - which then became somewhat muddied? So, which is wrong?. As far as I am aware, the actions that are forbidden in WP:SOCK is for both (or all) different accounts is to represent themselves as different individuals in order to subvert a discussion - especially where one of the other identities is also participating - by making it appear that a viewpoint has more adherents than is the case, or to circumvent 3RR on reverting, or the like. I do not see any suggestion that this has happened. Also, I am pretty certain that there is no WP policy in getting involved in controversial subjects/articles/discussions (see my essay) as being forbidden or even discouraged.

"He's probably getting advice how to get it" re drama; it appears that you are uncertain that this is indeed happening, so this is a subjective judgement, as indeed is the notion of drama. It is not good faith to assume any motivation other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia for any action, unless you have evidence to the contrary. As well as assuming AGF, WP:NPA makes it clear that any (supposed) affiliation is not grounds on which to judge an editors contributions. Which brings us to the thorny question of BADSITES and ArbCom; where it was recognised that (outside of two specific named sites) there was the possibility that discussion arising from WP critical sites informing discussion at WP was not grounds for such discussion to be disregarded - or those who may seem to reflect some views found in such places. I am aware that you vehemently opposed those findings, and have found reason (which I have remarked in other discussions) to continue to taint the actions or the purported views of WP editors with that of one of those sites. From that I might infer that you are continuing to troll for the suppression of reference to or acknowledgement of Wikipedia Review despite the ArbCom decision, except that AGF requires that I simply believe that your actions and comments are only guided by your belief in what is best for WP - which I of course do. Which brings us to "trolling", an adjective which appears to be the mirror of "sticking to ones principles"; one of which alludes to poor behavior and the other to an admirable personal trait - a subjective consideration, often reflecting a bias.

To return to my original comment, which was originally in response to Will Beback, do you not find it strange that one person should criticise an editor for making edits to an article while another criticises the same editor for not contributing to article space a few paragraphs later? Surely you both cannot be right? LessHeard vanU 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU misunderatands my concern. It isn't with participating in discussions - it's with participating in one dispute after another without making any contributions to the encyclopedia. While it may be fun to debate issues, that's not the point of this project. We're here to write a reference work. There are a bunch of accounts that seem more devoted to stoking Wiki-dramas then to getting work done. At the extreme, we've even had sock of banned users coming through and intentionally provoking disputes for the amusement of the WR crowd. In my opinion, we've been too patient with disruptive users who act politely and claim to have the best interests of the project at heart, but whose actions tell a different story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many ways in which to build an encyclopedia than the adding of content in article space, there is the constructing and testing of the systems and procedures by which the content is evaluated and comported. The tools for this is debate and discussion. Without application of new ideas and criticism there is the possibility of entropy eroding the structure of the encyclopedia. What provides the most danger to WP, the supposed ill-willed actions of vandals or a self satisfied oligarchy that permits nobody to note where there might be evidence of decay or shoddy practice? It is even possible that the claim to have the best interest of WP at heart is exactly that, no matter how different their conclusions as to what is best differs from yours (or mine). It just requires a bit of good faith, and the ability to conduct a reasoned discussion. LessHeard vanU 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever wrote an encyclopedia solely by arguing over policies. Granted, a certain amount of policy-making is necessary. Disputes, both about content and about policy, are also inevitable. But disputes that aren't resolved are disruptive. There appear to be some editors who relish disputes, who maintain them, who even provoke them. These people do not help the project. Criticism for the sake of criticism isn't constructive. It is naive to ignore the fact that there is a website devoted to destroying Wikipedia whose members have been coming here to instigate disputes within the community. That type of activity should not be tolerated, whether as part of a concerted effort or just an individual initiative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK cautiously allows the use of an alternate account, with some examples, where the editor has a really compelling reason not to want to get their main account embroiled in a particular controversy. One example I've been given which arbitrators consider appropriate is: an editor who was cleaning up problems with paedophilia advocacy and did not want his main account (traceable to RWI and hence professional reputation) to be associated with paedophilia articles. We might also allow this for, say, scientology articles, where there is a long history of real-world harassment. This user had no such reason. It was a low-activity account anyway, and had shown no previous reluctance to engage in controversy. The idea that the main account needed isolating form the controversy fails to stand up to any kind of inspection, as pretty much everyone who knows the full facts seems to agree. This was a blatant gaming of the wording of WP:SOCK to go absolutely against its spirit, and the Wikilawyering about it has been tiresome and vexatious. Will is on the money above: we are being manipulated by those whose aim is to destroy or undermine us, in order to either destroy Wikipedia altogether, or gain an advantage in their content disputes. I urge everyone to read the evidence and findings of the Alkivar arbitration. I do not think Alkivar is or was evil, he was very skilfully manipulated by people whose goals are utterly inimical to this project. Incidents like this give them endless joy, they see us arguing forever over the blocking of an abusively used sockpuppet account (and do remember that the main account was never blocked, this was an account, not an editor, which was blocked), and they love it. They want us gone, and sowing the seeds of division in the admin community by creating drama in hot topic areas, and by prodding people like Alkivar with known views they can manipulate to create division and strife, is precisely what they are after. I cannot imagine that a year ago we'd have wasted a moment on this block, because it was so self-evidently an inappropriate use of an alternate account that it would have been stomped pretty much on creation. Instead we now have people supporting the sockpuppeteer in order, it seems to me, to preserve what is mistakenly seen as the "right" to free speech or the ability to link to sites that exist purely to undermine and destroy us. Would we have tolerated a sockpuppet account created solely to defend the ability to advocate paedophilia, to use one previous contentious incident? It's pretty clear from past arbitrations on LaRouche that the arbitrators take a dim view of single-purpose accounts for controversial subjects, you need to have a good reason - and this individual never did have a good reason. We have been trolled good and proper. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) To answer both in turn; of course Encyclopedia's are partly built by arguing over policy, do you believe that Encyclopedia Brittanica simply evolved without discussion? Policies in presentation and content have obviously changed over the various volumes - it is just that the discussion was internal. Disputes that are not resolved are indeed disruptive, but resolution requires both parties to work toward a result. Also, I concede that there are those who prefer the arena of debate to the "drudgery" of adding and citing content - but this is not necessarily a bad thing, since it is best that the talents of contributors be used in their areas of ability and a better encyclopedia can be the ultimate result. As for off-Wiki sites reaction to unfolding events, ignore them. Unless you have proof that an individual (or group of individuals) is a anti-WP member of an off-wiki site (since not all of the membership may be) or is being coached by such a person, then the WP member that is being influenced by off-Wiki comment is you, not the Fifth Columnist or Red Under the Bed. In the matter of PrivateMusings, there was some debate at Wikipedia Review as to what allegiences he had when he first appeared, which indicates that he is not "controlled" from anyone there (and lets not get into guessing games of double bluff, which is simply another drama developer).

Your interpretation of WP:SOCK appears far more severe than my reading of it - I see no requirement for a compelling reason, simply a desire not involve the main or original account in a "hot" area with the express consideration that the two or more accounts are used separately. It cannot be argued that PM's contributing, or the areas edited, has not been considered "hot" simply by what we are reading here, and that having a previous history which may be considered controversial is what is stated as a legitimate reason for creating an alternative account. (It was not PM who bought up the matter of the original account, either.) Therefore it appears that PM was using this account fully in compliance with the wording. If the wording of the policy does not reflect the spirit (not just an interpretation of the spirit, either) then the wording needs amending. You cannot sanction editors for following what they believed to be the proper course per their understanding of policy.

I have already commented on the claim that PM is being directed by members of an off-wiki site, and that your referrals to Wikipedia Review in this forum indicated that it isn't PM that appears is being manipulated by them. Perhaps a year ago this case would have been stamped on, but that needn't make it right. Things evolve, people (hopefully) learn, individual leave and other individuals join, the ability to link or not to sites depends on appropriateness and verifiability (not BADSITES), and the dynamics change. It is foolish, if not to say dangerous, to sit outside the process and wish for "the good old days", you have to engage with the situation that exists now - because that is where the encyclopedia is.

Finally (and this really is the last I will write on this, since it appears that the original matter is concluded) both of you need to consider that firstly you may be wrong either wholly or in part, and that your own obsessions with certain off-wiki sites colours your perceptions of other peoples motives. I'm not saying that you are and they do, just that you should be aware of the potential. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 11:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

<remove previous post, might not have helped.> - on second thoughts - I'm sure all editors would likely agree that this amounts to a discussion about my continued editing on the wiki. We have clear dispute resolution policies - at this stage I think we need to engage them, not just pop up on various noticeboards and (in my opinion) canvas for a ban. Perhaps a fairly simple ArbCom case is in order? I'd be more than happy to engage there, because they way it's happening at the moment is upsetting, and stressful for me, and hardly seems fair.

Oh, and many thanks to CBD for having the courtesy to notify me of this discussion - it's very unpalatable to discover a conversation about oneself taking place, without the decency of the editor involved to notify you. Privatemusings 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it in all that above, but just to be clear, you're down to exactly one account now, yes? By which I mean you are now only editing Wikipedia under the name Privatemusings and will stick to that in the future. Thanks, William Pietri 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am only editing wikipedia from now on as PM, and I'm very angry about Guy's behavior. Thank you too, for your considered comment on the whole situation, William. Privatemusings 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well hell, I'm angry about your behaviour - use of an alternate account that three arbitrators agree was inappropriate, coupled with endless whining and an edit history that contains very few uncontroversial edits on any of your three accounts. And most especially the fact that you continue to pretend that the problem is someone else. My involvement with Wikipedia spreads across every namespace, a couple of languages and more than one WMF project space. Yours, on the other hand, is largely restricted to agitation, querulousness and promoting drama. Let's see which of us gets banned first, shall we? Guy (Help!) 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let's go forward with dispute resolution, rather than sniping instigated by you at various noticeboards. Your comments seem to me to be a combination of personal attacks, appeals to authority, and outright needless escalation. I can say hand on heart that I haven't promoted or caused any of this recent drama - I don't believe the same of you. Let's take this calmly to Arb Com, mediation, or any sensible discussion forum. Privatemusings 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no dispute to resolve. You are on one account, and that's an end of it. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So the point of this upsetting, rather nasty thread was? I'm still very upset at the way you continue to treat me, and would like some sort of mediation or discussion about your behavior. My door's open, couldn't we start with some sort of dialog? Please? Privatemusings 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue? About what? Your continued disruptive involvement in controversy? I prefer to leave that to others, I have had a gutfull of your querulousness. As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone who knows the full facts - including three arbitrators - agrees that your use of multiple accounts was inappropriate, the fact that you chose to make this a drama rather than simply going back to your original account is rather symptomatic of your general approach, as far as I can see. I suspect there will be a few people watching your behaviour going forwards. Do be sure to keep out of trouble, won't you? Have a nice day. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well ok, Guy - but for you to say that you've had a gutfull is pretty rich, and to accuse me of creating drama when you've posted multiple times across multiple noticeboards, with no discernible purpose, is self evidently wrong, and hurtful. I welcome every pair of eyes on this situation because you have behaved inexcusably, and should take a calm look in the mirror. Have a nice day? - I will... you too. Privatemusings 12:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jokela School shooting

Hi, there has been a shooting in a Finnish school. The perpetrator warned people beforehand about this on Youtube, but they have censored it all, and deleted all his videos. I have the stuff saved on my PC though. Is it OK for me to paste it onto the talk page ? It's like madman stuff, with a 3 page manifesto, and detailed info about the shootings, as well as a video of him shooting an apple and some pics not unlike those that Korean shooter in the US took. (Youtube profile deleted, but here is the page in the Google cache) I ask if this (text, video and images) can be posted on wikipedia in regards to 2 points:

• copyright considerations, the images can be used under fair-use I guess.
• legality: is it legal to post this ? I am asking because the Youtube people must have deleted it for a reason, however since American TV showed the film by that Korean I'm guessing it is not illegal in the USA. Jackaranga 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Youtube and dailymotion shoot on sight when they have the slightest doubt on something that is reported, so the removal shouldn't be taken as proof the content is illegal. That being said, I think the rest is an editorial decision. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, how about the copyright situation ? Is reproducing the 3 page manifesto copyright infringement ? Or is it considered to be released into the public domain, as a public statement ? Jackaranga 14:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless the shooter released the manifesto under the GFDL, which I doubt, it is still copyright to him. Now, I really doubt that anyone would ever come after the project over copyright issues over it, and likely he *wants* it distributed, but if we don't have a GFDL declaration, we likely cannot post it directly. All IMHO though. - TexasAndroid 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To the extent it's covered in reliable sources, we can still write about it and include short quotes from it. The video is a similar thing. A few screenshots are OK, though they need fair use rationales, etc. and should be discussed in the article. They're be a lot of people working on this, so if you don't do it, it's likely someone else will.--chaser - t 20:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I got edit-conflicted, but Chaser just said everything that I was going to add, anyway. Use it sparingly, source it well, and provide fair use rationales for screencaps. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Tex; I'm fairly sure manifestoes are inherently in the public domain. Look at s:Author:Theodore_Kaczynski, for example. --Kendrick7^talk 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Something isn't automatically public domain because someone calls it a manifesto. Kaczynski released his manifesto into the public domain [3]. The copyright status of the others is unclear, and I wouldn't take WikiSource's word for it.--chaser - t 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm right; see s:Template:PD-manifesto -- Kendrick7^talk 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny edit of the day

For your amusement, I present this edit. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And to think...in a few days that can be its very own newly created article! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the title worked :-D I thought mine from yesterday had a bit of irony to it. spryde | talk 16:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started a collection at User:Jehochman/Diff of the day. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's like an even crappier version of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. :-/ --Ali'i 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right! - Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Calendar

Portal:Current events is a semi-protected page, but it includes the unprotected template Portal:Current events/Calendar, which is frequently attacked by vandals. I'd suggest that the template is also semi-protected. --Camptown 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can cascading semi protection be done? I know cascading full protection can but if the semi one is possible just do it to Portal:Current events (By the way, this should be on WP:RPP, for future reference--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cascading semi-protection isn't possible. I went ahead and semi-protected the the page. In the future, use WP:RFPP. -- John Reaves 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Shininycoal suspicion

(Not sure if this should go here or on the incidents noticeboard...)
User:Shininycoal, for a user whose editing history spans the last 12 hours (although the account was created October 22), has a short but quite odd string of edits. Maybe I'm just overly suspicious, but it seems odd for a new editor to move the archives of MediaWiki:Blockedtext [4][5][6], put an (apparently spurious) ArbcomArticle tag on Talk:Jeff V. Merkey [7], create a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey [8], and some edits to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles and its talk page.

Is this a odd thing that might require some reversals, or should I turn down the sensitivity of my oddness detectors? Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I blocked this as a probable SCOX troll. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • He may have returned using TOR exit node 122.17.15.125. Only a single edit was made with that IP, restoring Shininycoal's changes to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. I reverted. Please correct me if I was wrong to do so. --MediaMangler 08:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am reliably informed this is user:Amorrow, who is now unfortunately out of jail. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet. User:Pazan.ua

• Pazan.ua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mona23653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (added by - Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Take a look at the newest member of the Ukrainian wikiproject. User:Pazan.ua. this is his first edit on wikipedia. Why did user:Mona23653 make a user page for a someone without a single edit? Secondly, User:Pazan.ua‎ has yet to make a single content edit, but he has joined 3 wikiprojects, what?!? A more than obvious sock puppet of Mona23653. Could someone please deal with this. Regards, Bogdan 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like the sock is being used abusively, and, by your usage of "deal with this," I assume you want the sockpuppet blocked, correct? --EoL talk 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe the person with double accounts simply doesn't know that it's an offense. A warning from an administrator should be good enough for now. Bogdan 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It most likely is a sock. Has this person done anything to violate WP:SOCK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The only edits that account has is joining several wikiprojects and adding some userboxes. I'm 100% sure it's a sock as the user page was made before the account had any edits, plus they have the same intrests. Bogdan 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Just now he joined the first guy User:Mona23653, in deleting comments from another user on the Holocaust talk page. Bogdan 01:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

He's also being rather obnoxious. JuJube 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've advised User:Mona23653 of the questionable appearance of this behavior. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like Mona23653 is engaged in POV pushing and edit warring: [9] [10] [11] (adding) More POV pushing: [12] [13] [14] - Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar closed

The above arbitration case has closed. "For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions", Alkivar is desysopped. He may apply to the committee to have his adminship reinstated, but may not apply at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Burntsauce is banned as a meat-puppet of banned user JB196. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Its amazing Burntsauce remained unblocked all this time, when he arrived here it was so obvious that he was just mimicking JB196 that it was a almost WP:DUCK case, the only thing that separated both users were different IP addresses. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I did give Burntsauce an indef back in April for that reason. Alkivar lifted it. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a vivid demonstration of how successful the small crowd of banned abusers currently running Wikipedia Review have become in manipulating and exploiting our good faith. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"...Wikipedia Review..."? That would be a Certain Site, would it not? LessHeard vanU 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily so successful anymore. :) Durova^Charge! 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys closed

The above arbitration case has been closed. Commodore Sloat and Biophys are instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way. Failure to do so voluntarily may result in the imposition of a formal restriction on their editing. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:67.168.146.142

Resolved

... has added the phrases "to poop on his eyeball!" "similar to viagra" and " to apply poop juice in Hulks eye" all clear vandalism to the World War Hulk and Sentry (Robert Reynolds) pages. - 66.109.248.114 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

... about 20 hours ago, and has been warned for each occasion. If he becomes active again, report to WP:AIV. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Help fixing a cut and paste move

Resolved

Can a more experienced admin walk me through (or show me how to go about) fixing the cut and paste move of Iron distance triathlon to Full Distance Triathlon. A user named User:Pickywiki performed the move, and I saw it when it happened, but this was before I was an admin. Later, he came back and undid my fix. To complicate matters, it should probably be at Full distance triathlon, rather than Full Distance Triathlon. So, the history pages need to be merged and then moved to Full distance triathlon, but I'm not sure how to do it. Leebo ^T/C 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First move Iron distance triathlon to Full Distance Triathlon. It will say that you have to delete the page before the page can be moved. Check the ok box, and delete away. Next, go to view deleted edits from the history tab of the Full Distance Triathlon page. Click the option to restore all edits. Wait up to 5 minutes for the database to catch up, and you should have a history that has been merged. Next, make sure that the current version of the article is accurate (it will most likely still have the redirect showing, so you'll have to edit an earlier version to get the latest version of the article). Finally, you can move that to the new name. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it, and the log for the page says I restored the deleted revisions, so now I'm just waiting for it to actually show them in the history. Does it often take much longer than 5 minutes? Leebo ^T/C 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, it worked perfectly, and I think I've cleared up any double redirects and talk page issues. Fantastic! Thanks Andrew. Leebo ^T/C 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One additional trick I tend to use when doing history merges is, before the move, I open an edit window on the latest version of the destination page. Thus, right after I do the move, I can flip back to the open edit window and do a save to restore to the latest version at once. I do this restore even before I go undelete the deleted revisions. By doing this, there's no need to wait for the history to catch up, because as soon as you restore the revisions, you are done, and can move on to other things and let the server catch up whenever it gets to it. :) - TexasAndroid 19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Insulting Bots

• I have a question about users who insult bots. For example this edit summary. Is this considered a personal attack ? If it were "Fuck [username]" it would definitely be a personal attack this much we know for sure. Is a bot a contributor, as designated in WP:NPA in the phrase Comment on content, not on the contributor.? I think that if the bot has a "contributions" page, then it must be a contributor. However a bot is also a form of contribution by the owner and contributions are inherent to content, so it's hard for me to tell. I believe it may be a case that the bot is at the same time a contribution and a contributor.
• Is "fuck" considered rude, because in WP:CIVIL it says not to be rude, yet the other day I saw BetacommandBot had left a valid but perhaps misplaced (admin was not the original uploader) message on an admin's talk page about a missing rationale, which was removed with the comment "fuck off, silly trout".
• I'm saying this because many bots accomplish ungrateful tasks and insults directed at them may be perceived as being directed at the owner. I don't agree with the mass deletion tagging of images by bots for deletion, but maybe the solution is not to attempt to antagonise the owner but rather change the deletion criteria, if one is so inclined. I think most bots are made in good faith, take time and effort to develop and keep running. Be it allowed or not, someone who knows should mention the status of bots on WP:ATTACK. Jackaranga 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the policies you cite can't apply to bots; their intent is to govern discussion between contributors. But the first example you gave is a clear example of disruption to the project. — madman bum and angel 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Most bots have pretty thick skin and won't mind. It's all a matter of context as to the verbiage. In this case it's pretty clear that this user is being disruptive. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

request a disambiguation?

How do I request a disambiguation? Specifically, there are two people with the name "Kent Larson" listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Larson_%28disambiguation%29

Searching for "Kent Larson" list only the gay porn star. How can a search for "Kent Larson" return the MIT Media Lab faculty (or both names)?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kllmit (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 

If you moved Kent Larson to Kent Larson (porn star) and made Kent Larson a redirect to Kent Larson (disambiguation), I think you'd have the outcome you're looking for. Leebo ^T/C 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't redirect an article to a disambiguation page. If there is no article at Kent Larson, then the disambig page should be at Kent Larson, no Kent Larson (disambiguation). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. Hut 8.5 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but someone seems to have done this already, so my comment can be disregarded :P Leebo ^T/C 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth has happened here ? Now we have to pages with identical content and someone has crushed an article with a disambiguation page. Let me try to sort this out. Use the move function in the future please. Jackaranga 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting deletion of Kent Larson (porn star) to make way for move. Jackaranga 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of these copy paste moves, it now requires admin help and is much more complicated, can an admin please: delete Kent Larson (porn star), then move Kent Larson to Kent Larson (porn star), then delete Kent Larson, then move Kent Larson (disambiguation) to Kent Larson, then delete Kent Larson (disambiguation). Thanks. Jackaranga 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference all you needed to do was move Kent Larson, to Kent Larson (porn star), then create a disambiguation page at Kent Larson. This way you don't need admin help. Jackaranga 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User THEunique

RE: User:THEunique

I just can't seem to get through to this guy. I add cleanup and Wikify tags, he just yanks them out. All entries to his talk page, User talk:THEunique, just get blanked. He/she has had several image notes added, but he/she just does nothing but blank them out. This is strange one: "14:12, 7 November 2007 Deskana (Talk | contribs) m (moved User talk:Ochahill to User talk:THEunique: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Ochahill" to "THEunique") (undo)"

If you can either get through to him, and tell him how to edit in Wikipedia, go for it. Otherwise, I would like the account blocked. This person might also be German, and that is part of the problem, English is a second language.

Thanks, ~ WikiDon 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:USER, editors may remove warnings and talk messages at will from their own talk pages. Do you have diffs that illustrate the editor's other issues? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The "strange one" you quoted above was a username change request as per Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive32#Ochahill → THEunique. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like this is the kind of thing WikiDon is referring to. THEunique has removed tags without addressing the problems listed in those tags. I agree with the above comments though that users are allowed to remove comments from their talk pages as they see fit. Username change requests are also not unusual. Also, I'm not really sure where the guess about the user being German is coming from, as the user identifies as a college student from Illinois whose first language is English. Leebo ^T/C 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"editors may remove warnings and talk messages at will from their own talk pages" - I have gotten in trouble for doing that to my talk page in the past, the admin said that I was vandalizing. ~ WikiDon 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They were mistaken. IMHO, it's very poor form to do it, and I think many (most?) would agree...but it is allowed. Dppowell 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How long ago were you admonished? The official WP:VAN policy was clarified to explicitly state that editors could remove messages at will from their own talk pages 672 days ago [15]. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DIFFs

Sterling Trucks:

• he takes out the tag
• I put it in
• he takes it out
• I put it back

Daimler Financial Services

• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put them back in today

Chrysler Financial Services

• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put the tags in
• he takes them out
• I put them back in today

Fifth Third Bank

• here is with tag
• very next edit, he yanks it

He signed up his account on an IP address that was 68.75.173.255 (talk · contribs) that was being used abusively and blockeb by Admin: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs)

If you check the history of his talk page, he received numorous COPYRIGHT IMAGE VIO Notices [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23], plus a Copy Vio for text lifted from Daimler.com. Plus numorous other notices about image removal for lack of proper usage. He just doesn't seem to care. He just lets them get deleted, and then just uploads them again.

• I warn him to stop
• he just blanks the page

He makes no effort what so ever to fix the problem or communicate with other Wikipedians to make the articles better, just bulls ahead with his own personal agenda.

He is also sockpuppetting under at least 216.82.180.23 (talk · contribs), 216.82.180.24 (talk · contribs), just look at all the warning at that talk page. I think that this might be his work address.

~ WikiDon 03:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've notified THEunique of this discussion so that he can present his side if he wants. He may choose not to, but it's appropriate to at least let him know his conduct is being discussed. Leebo ^T/C 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That is good, he has more than abused 3RR, and uses IPs-SPs to help to it. ~ WikiDon 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this ... why did you give [24] the user both a level 3 and 4 vandalism warning at the same time? Applying escalating warnings non-sequentially is highly unusual. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ryan Whitney.jpg

Could I get someone to speedy delete this? It's already been uploaded to commons as Image:Ryan Whitney2.jpg, and it's blocking another commons image. I know this may not exactly follow policy, but it seems to make sense in this instance. Thanks. 71.58.97.225 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that images have to wait five or seven days, before being deleted if they're correctly placed on Wikimedia Commons. Qst 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just stop waiting around and just do it. --Haemo 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Block/ban for further consideration

I've just blocked ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week for continued edit-warring, and I'd like some input on what to do with him further.

This is the same user as Mr. Neutron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self-declared), FunkyFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (pretty obvious from the editing profile), and likely also the earlier VMORO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus possibly another sock account too. Together, these accounts have a history of almost incessant edit-warring over Macedonia-related articles of well over two years. Even though Foreigner is now quite adept at gaming the 3RR system, staying continually just below the mark, I count a total of eleven separate blocks on these accounts spread over the course of 24 months.

Here's just a representative sample of what editing on these articles is like. Foreigner is obviously not the only edit-warrior in this domain, but I do see him as one of the principal instigators.

• Kiro Gligorov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv on 7 Nov 2007; all his previous edits during the last months are also reverts
• ASNOM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv on 7 Nov 2007
• Struga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv on 6 Nov 2007; previous slow edit-warring all through July and September
• Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3rv between 2-4 Nov 2007
• Nikola Karev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 4rv between 30 Oct - 4 Nov
• Zajdi, Zajdi Jasno Sonce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 4 (semi-)rv between 28-29 Oct
• Toše Proeski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) revert-warring on 21-22 Oct 2007

I'm open to all suggestions how to proceed further. Community-imposed topic ban? Revert parole? Handing the case off to Arbcom together with the whole rest of the Macedonian-Bulgarian fracas? (That one is going to become the next Armenia-Azerbaijan case, if you ask me.)

Note that I've also handed out shorter blocks just today to two other participants of the same set of disputes (Dzole (talk · contribs) and Jingiby (talk · contribs)). Also, for the sake of full disclosure, I ought to state here that I've myself been editing one or two of the articles listed above (I keep getting asked to intervene in these disputes by this or that side.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of this ongoing Wikipedia disruption, I'd say it's time for the ArbCom. — madman bum and angel 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be useful to come up with some policy to handle contentious subject matter like this. That is, some way we can short-cut the whole arbitration committee and just go with 1RR or some such. I have no idea how such a policy could be worded and applied fairly, though, and I firmly believe it should take far more than just one single admin dictating that this is now in effect. Personally, I try to stay away from such conflicts though I am not always successful. --Yamla 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent passed principle in an ArbCom case that when "reasonable efforts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed... seemingly draconian measures [may be adopted] as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia." Presumably, this doesn't extend to administrators; something like this should be considered though. east.718 at 04:26, 11/9/2007

Well, we've always had the authority to do community bans, and community-imposed restrictions such as revert paroles or topic bans are only a logical consequence of that, being simply a selective use of that same authority. The question is just, are we confident doing that in the case of this account, or can we hope for a more comprehensive solution comprising other potential troublemakers? I loathe the Arbcom process, but I must admit for a deeper investigation of the whole field Arbcom might be more suitable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion, I think it is time for those involved in the articles and outside editors and administrators to have the community sanction discussion. Whether that takes the form of general 1revert parole for everyone or something else the topic area seems to be disrupted by ongoing inappropriate editor behavior. --Rocksanddirt 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tasmin Jahan article

Resolved

 – Left an appropriate message on the poster's talk page Dppowell 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I was wondering if a full length factual article could be entered on Wikipedia regarding the playwright Tasmin Jahan? Tasmin Jahan's details did appear under the TONBRIDGE article but now it is not appearing.

please let me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.115.165 (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeking WP:U add'l opinions

...on Flourishadmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reported by a bot at WP:UAA. This may technically be a vio for "admin," though I suspect the user may be the administrator of this mailing list. What I was going to do was e-mail the person specified on that site and ask them if this is their account, then suggest that they create a more personalized account name. I'm reluctant to just block and put up a template. Thoughts? Dppowell 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see what he or she does with his or her edits. If they look promotional, I'd block. In any case, doesn't this fail matches the name of a company or group or email addresses etc likely to be promotional username violations?Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right--I was so focused on the word 'admin' that the other vio didn't even occur to me. However, because the user (if I'm right about the connection to that mailing list) may have many ties to the academic community, I'm inclined to assume good faith and IAR for the moment in the interest of informal community outreach. That said, if someone else thinks a block is in order, I won't object. Dppowell 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon page creation

Just thought everyone would like to know, apparently anon page creation isn't going to be happening, User:Brion Vibber and User:Tim Starling have said that there would have to be consensus here for them to turn it on - not sure why it was even announced when the developers weren't even contacted. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• collective sigh of relief* The Placebo Effect 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• collective sign of confusion* --Haemo 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anon page creation - let's try and come to a consensus either way on what we want to do about this. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As always, the best suggestion yet. Perhaps we can obtain comments in a open discussion from those who wished to implement it. Some users don't necessarily oppose the change as long as specific concerns are addressed. This RfC may be the place to vent it out. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

YEAH! turning it back on was a bad idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A bot would go a long way towards keeping WP:AFC up to date. For the most part, bad article submissions are immediately rejected, while decent submissions can languish for months. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, are you sure? My impression is that Jimbo Wales, Anthere, and Eloquence all thought Gmaxwell's experiment was a good idea. Those people don't need community consent and can just order Brion et al. to turn it back on. Maybe the board, etc. has decided not to do this without community approval, but the initial proposition certainly wasn't presented as if anyone was asking the community for permission. Dragons flight 02:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It must have something to do with the lenghty discussion at the Village pump. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure now you mention it. Did any of them comment about it on the mailing list? I'm not aware of them commenting about it on-wiki. But I think that their word would overule consensus and the devs would probably do it. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gregory discussed this directly on the conversation that took place on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)‎ he is aware that there isn't a concensus there yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this at the aforementioned RFC, but wouldn't it be a good idea that if anon page creation were enabled, a feature could be added to Special:Newpages allowing for the viewing of only those pages made by anons. SashaCall 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to take this opportunity to spam Wikipedia:Article wizard. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow I love this page. I'm wondering if there is a technical way to redirect new page creation for not autoconfirmed users there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Callmebc

This user has been blocked no fewer than nine times, always for the same things- edit-warring on Killian documents and its related pages, and incivility. He is now blocked, for a week for-- wait for it-- edit-warring on Killian documents authenticity issues, and he's spending his block spewing personal attacks and accusations of incompetence and conspiracy against... well, pretty much everyone who crosses his path, as far as I can see. He doesn't seem to have made any real changes in his editing patterns despite the many blocks and the assorted people who have tried to gently guide him into the right way. Do you think it's time for an indefinite block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I extended his block to a month as a result of his mocking remarks, and protected the talk page for the duration of this block to prevent any more of them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, and would endorse a theoretical indef if xe misbehaves again. The community's patience can, in fact, be exhausted. - Philippe | Talk 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also endorse, I got bad vibes after I didn't block him and another person for 3RR. Caribbean H.Q., is there any reason you blocked with autoblock disabled? east.718 at 04:17, 11/9/2007

I was under the impression that the box was checkmarked, not sure it should be established anyways since autoblocks are temporary and one will expire shortly probably affecting hundreds of users if his address is dynamic. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, autoblocks only last 24 hours and generally it is a feature that only helps in stopping a user with a history of socking. Keegan^talk 05:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Occasional good edits but he seems unable or unwilling to understand the concept of original research. From his calls to battle, wild accusations, and incivility, I'm not sure he cares. This current block should be his last chance if it isn't extended to indef (which I'd have no objection to). - Merzbow 05:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't a topic ban be put into effect? SashaCall 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally that would take a community decision from dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration. The community noticeboard used to try to tackle these things, but reaching consensus in a noticeboard format proved to be a problem since discussion wasn't organized to define an outcome. Keegan^talk 05:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we couldn't hold a consensus discussion regarding a topic ban here. To demonstrate, I'll propose it: let's topic ban Callmebc from Killian documents and related pages. Durova^Charge! 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think User: UBeR is considering an RfC. This might be a better forum, as the aim there should be to demonstrate to the user which parts of his behaviour (as opposed to his opinions) are unacceptable. My experience with User:Callmebc suggests that a topic ban will be waste of time, as it will be hard to make him understand that the reason is not political prejudice. --Stephan Schulz 12:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least remove the full-protection from Callmebc's talk page so s/he can respond to some of these accusations and potential bans? I realize the page was being used for less than productive purposes, and have blocked Callmebc myself, but s/he should be able to respond to a potential ban. - auburnpilot talk 13:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, protection reduced to semi. Regarding how this editor perceives it, I'd rather try topic banning as a lesser solution to sitebanning, which can and does get applied when editors act as if all of Wikipedia were with 'em or against 'em. Some people used to use a template for transclusion back when WP:CSN was operational, so editors who were blocked could convey their point of view to a sanctions discussion without impediment. Would someone go through the archives and install that for this discussion, please? Durova^Charge! 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert irreversible page move of Template:Soviet occupation

User:Dojarca recently irreversibly moved Template:Soviet occupation to Template:Soviet occupation zones [25] unilaterally without any WP:RM process to gauge concensus first. Please move this page back per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal_of_irreversible_page_moves. Thanks. Martintg 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, no comment on the merits of the move. east.718 at 04:19, 11/9/2007

Martintg, just formally do a requested move next time this happens and establish official consensus through the Wikipedia process. This move warring has to stop and as I've participated in the dispute once I'm not going to protect it from move. But if you go through proper channels, this won't happen again. Keegan^talk 05:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to modify that, you need to work things out with User:Dojarca in a forum other than the template talk space. I'm going to be bold and move protect the page after reading some more. Any admin may revert. Keegan^talk 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree, in controversial cases like this we should defer to community input, and this can best be done via WP:RM and User:Dojarca is free to initiate such a case if he so desires. Martintg 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys are having move wars about names of templates??? Take a slap with a wet trout, everyone. Did it ever occur to any of you that a move war about a template is the most idiotically futile thing you could possibly do? The names of templates are invisible, they are never supposed to be displayed in an article! The template can be named just anything, it will never make any difference to the normal reader. I'm tempted to move the miserable thing to {{iopilkshfiziewrlkdjfdlauoer}}, just to drive home the point.

If you must edit-war, please go and edit-war about something more important. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty lame edit war to me... and I was involved in the Great Cow Tipping Edit Wars. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend familiarizing yourself with the case before commenting. After his XfD failed, Dojarca moved, renamed and changed the template without any consensus (everybody but he was against it). No one could care less about the name of the template, it was the content change that was problematical. -- Sander Säde 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally I would absolutely agree with you. However since this discussion has been about the template's move rather than its content, I too feel that the people unilaterally moving pages need to find something better to edit war about. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from User:Rubber_cat

Resolved

User:Rubber_cat has vandalized a number of pages today, though I have reverted all of them to this point. User should be warned and/or blocked for their edits. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user based on the nature of both his vandalism spree today and of his troublesome editing past, however next time such a report should be filed on WP:AIV where it will receive the attention its supposed to receive, this is not a board for reporting vandalism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please can an admin delete this page of mine

Hi there,

thanks for your attention to this request.

I would like to post a note about an academic survey invitation to this noticeboard. This was recommended to me after substantial discussion involving several administrators about what was the appropriate way of my contacting administrators to inform them of this survey. As the survey is intended only for Wikipedia administrators, it was also suggested that I first ask for the survey invitation page to be deleted so that only admins can access it.

For full details of the previous discussion with admins as well as the page I would like deleted, please see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zhanliusc/Survey#Survey

If that looks okay, please can an admin delete that page, and then I will subsequently post the actual note to this noticeboard when I properly open the survey.

If there are any questions, please let me know. Thanks very much Zhan Zhanliusc 11:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're the only contributer to a page, you can just add {{db-author}} to the top. Someone will eventually take care of it for you. --Onorem♠Dil 11:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I've added the tag. Hopefully, it will be deleted soon. Zhanliusc 11:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it for you. Woodym555 12:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Zhanliusc 12:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey of Wikipedia Administrators

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, if you are interested in being invited to take part in a brief (about 10 mins) academic survey, please take a look at the contents of the following deleted page :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zhanliusc/Survey

Please note that this page was deliberately deleted to make sure that only Wikipedia administrators can see it. Please do not undelete the content.

This notice on WP:AN and the deleted page technique are being used on the recommendation of Wikipedia administrators in order to avoid spamming and to restrict the survey to admins. Please see the deleted page for links to relevant previous discussions with admins, and for further information about the survey (including links to my university site and full contact details).

(Note: I understand that the noticeboard may become busy and there is a possibility that this notice becomes archived quickly (I see this noticeboard page is already quite full). In that case, I may want to post a reminder if that's okay. I only imagine one reminder being needed, if it is at all, as the survey closes after a few days)

Thank you very much Zhan Li, University of Southern California email: zhanli at usc dot edu

Zhanliusc 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zhan. I've seen that you have posted this same message at many admins' talk pages and believe that is sufficient. Could you please stop as posting the same message everywhere would be considered as spamming? Thanks for your consideration. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the best place for the "notice". (As opposed to canvassing...) - jc37 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and that's why there has been no reason to revert this thread. However, Zhan can now stop using admins' talk pages i believe. I personally participated at the survey yesterday. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He has stopped posting it to admins' talk pages, as far as I can tell from his contribs... Leebo ^T/C 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to publish the results so the rest of us can see them? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, I'd like to see the results as well.  ;) Mercury 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thirded! --Masamage ♫ 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What to do when accused of "harassing" editors?

Dear admins, early today over here editor PaddyM wrote, "Your continued harassment of other editors is confusing at best and disruptive at worst." I am honestly confused and entirely baffled at what he means. PaddyM and I had been involved in a content dispute which almost erupted into an edit war, but I withdrew myself from any editing of the disputed content in order to prevent such a situation. I did leave a few templates but none of them were inappropriate. While PaddyM accused me of harassment, I am the one who now feels harassed. Tangentially, other editors have chimed in saying that the disputed content is not in the view of PaddyM, so to a certain extend I think he may just be feeling hurt and needing to lash out. Might an admin get involved to help informally mediate? Thank you. Bstone 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears as if both of you were clearly engaged in a content dispute to the point of edit warring. You yourself seemed to go a bit overboard with adding templates to the article and template warning established users. PaddyM also clearly was edit warring and not discussing things on talk. That said, the comments that were left at your talk page (that you removed) seem civil. Throwing out accusations of "harassment" doesn't help the situation, but I can understand how PaddyM can be offended by the templates. At this point, it seems like you just need to get a third opinion, or even file a content RfC to get more discussion going on at the talk page (so it isn't just you vs. PaddyM). In essence, this is still a content dispute, and I see no reason to come to the admins for anything. If the edit warring continues, the page should probably be protected. I think you should both just take a step back, relax, try to work together, and try to get more user input. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, as is entirely clear in the talk page for the article, I have worked very hard in attempting to discuss and work together with PaddyM. As you have indicated, he has not discussed the content of the article but rather has been entirely indignant that his version is the only legitimate one. As I stated on the talk page I will refrain from editing this section in order to prevent an edit war. Other editors are beginning to chime in and indicate that PaddyM's opinions are not supported by the facts. However, I am mostly concerned about PaddyM stating that I am harassing him and other editors. I believe this to be unfounded and rather a personal insult and incivility on the part of PaddyM. Thus, I ask that an admin chime in to help mediate. Bstone 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"entirely indignant that his version is the only legitimate one" why is he angry his own version is the only legitimate one ? Jackaranga 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TheNightmareMan

Resolved

 – ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TheNightmareMancontributions continues to unilaterally archive featured article of the day talk pages by moving them and leaving the message "This page has been archived." The user has been warned but seems not to respond to anything. 128.227.126.232 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• "It has become apparent that your account is being used only for vandalism, so it has been blocked indefinitely. --Yamla 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)" Looks like this has already been resolved. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)